TC0-08959

TC0-08959

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants did not prove on a balance of probabilities that agents of persecution were motivated to locate them in Port Harcourt and did not meet the high threshold to show relocation to Port Harcourt would be objectively unreasonable given their personal circumstances; therefore Port Harcourt is a viable IFA and the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TC0-08959
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Risk of Persecution, Reasonableness of Relocation, New Evidence, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Internal Flight Alternative Risk of Persecution Reasonableness of Relocation New Evidence Standard of Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad Review of RPD Decision) / Decision on Appeal (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Port Harcourt is a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the appellants
  2. 2 Whether agents of persecution have the means and motivation to locate the appellants in the IFA
  3. 3 Whether relocation to the IFA would be objectively unreasonable given appellants' personal circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants did not prove on a balance of probabilities that agents of persecution were motivated to locate them in Port Harcourt and did not meet the high threshold to show relocation to Port Harcourt would be objectively unreasonable given their personal circumstances; therefore Port Harcourt is a viable IFA and the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and RPD decision confirmed: appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection
  • No new evidence admitted on appeal under IRPA s.110(4)